This file was created by the TYPO3 extension publications --- Timezone: CEST Creation date: 2026-06-03 Creation time: 05:10:11 --- Number of references 6 article Lavallée2024412 Article 2024 10.1017/S1062798724000292 European Review 32 412 – 434 4 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-105001086928&doi=10.1017%2fS1062798724000292&partnerID=40&md5=2ac281f3a8bb1594fc283a7802538f5e Cited by: 0; All Open Access, Hybrid Gold Open Access Yan Lavallee Jackie E. Kendrick John C. Eichelberger Paolo Papale Freysteinn Sigmundsson Donald B. Dingwell conference Eichelberger20232868 Conference paper 2023 Transactions - Geothermal Resources Council 47 2868 – 2882 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85182023916&partnerID=40&md5=50dda0630f0b6adec23abb03648c9245 Cited by: 0 John Eichelberger Yan Lavallee Anette Mortensen Paolo Papale Freysteinn Sigmundsson article Papale2022 Volcano science has been deeply developing during last decades, from a branch of descriptive natural sciences to a highly multi-disciplinary, technologically advanced, quantitative sector of the geosciences. While the progress has been continuous and substantial, the volcanological community still lacks big scientific endeavors comparable in size and objectives to many that characterize other scientific fields. Examples include large infrastructures such as the LHC in Geneva for sub-atomic particle physics or the Hubble telescope for astrophysics, as well as deeply coordinated, highly funded, decadal projects such as the Human Genome Project for life sciences. Here we argue that a similar big science approach will increasingly concern volcano science, and briefly describe three examples of developments in volcanology requiring such an approach, and that we believe will characterize the current decade (2020–2030): the Krafla Magma Testbed initiative; the development of a Global Volcano Simulator; and the emerging relevance of big data in volcano science. © 2022, The Author(s). 2022 English 02588900 10.1007/s00445-022-01524-0 Bulletin of Volcanology 84 Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH Istituto Nazionale Di Geofisica E Vulcanologia, Sezione Di Pisa, Via Cesare Battisti 53, Pisa, 56125, Italy 3 magma; volcano; volcanology https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85124949145&doi=10.1007%2fs00445-022-01524-0&partnerID=40&md5=a35501e0b53ee0b4f5ec90fa380f6374 cited By 1 P. Papale D. Garg article 2019 10.1029/2019EO125255 Eos 100 J. Eichelberger conference Hólmgeirsson20182422 Preparations are underway for drilling well KMT-1 of the Krafla Magma Testbed at Krafla, Iceland to sample and instrument the margin of a rhyolite magma body. The project is driven by the need to understand magmatic systems, to improve volcano monitoring strategies, and to develop next-generation, high-enthalpy geothermal energy. The planned depth of the well is 2100 m with cemented casings to 2040 m and a 8 ½” open hole section for coring to 2010 m. The geology for KMT-1 is well known and the well will be located close to IDDP-1 where magma was unexpectedly intersected at 2102 m depth in 2009. © 2018 International Journal of Caring Sciences. All rights reserved. Conference paper 2018 English 0934412235 01935933 Transactions - Geothermal Resources Council 42 Geothermal Resources Council 2422 – 2434 Commerce; Drilling; Geothermal energy; Geothermal fields; Power markets; Testbeds; Coring; Engineering challenges; Magma; Magma bodies; Magmatic systems; Open holes; Volcano monitoring; Well design; Infill drilling https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85059896182&partnerID=40&md5=79759bce5701edfcd9a183bc118caeae Cited by: 2 Sveinbjörn Hólmgeirsson Hjalti Pall Ingolfsson John Eichelberger Stephen Pye Randy Normann Gunnar Skúlason Kaldal Doug Blankenship Anette Mortensen Sigurður Markússon Sigrun Nanna Karlsdóttir Sunna Ólafsdóttir Wallevik Sigurður Magnús Garðarsson Jefferson Tester Yan Lavallee conference Eichelberger20182396 The Krafla Magma Testbed (KMT), Krafla Caldera, Iceland, is proposed to be the first magma observatory, an international multi-borehole facility where teams will conduct scientific experiments and engineering tests focused on the magma-hydrothermal interface in a superhot geothermal systems (SHGS). Objectives are to: 1) Core and monitor from the roots of the hydrothermal system to the top of the magma body; 2) Provide ground-truth testing of surface-based techniques for locating magma; 3) Perturb the deep system to understand signals interpreted as volcano “unrest”; 4) Advance drilling and completion technology so that superhot and supercritical fluids can be produced from the magma roof zone; and 5) Advance sensor technology so that magma bodies can be monitored directly, vastly improving the eruption warnings important to 10% of Earth's population. KMT will provide a vanguard view of magma and hydrothermal circulation as the single system that it is. It will integrate the separate communities of practice of geothermal energy, which relies heavily on direct drilling observations; and volcanology, which relies on surface observations and theoretical models. The driving force is that geothermal drilling hit magma in Iceland, Kenya, and Hawaii, revealing how close to the surface magma exists and how closely connected magma is to the hydrothermal system. KMT is a 3 rd path in efforts to expand geothermal use. One path is to go deeper in cooler places, the Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) concept, relying on advances in drilling and reservoir stimulation for economic viability, e.g. Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) of the U.S. Department of Energy. Another, within SHGS, is to drill to conditions where fluids should be supercritical, e.g. IDDP-2 of Iceland Deep Drilling Program (IDDP) at Reykjanes. The 3 rd , also SHGS and pursued by KMT, is to access the vicinity of a magma body. This takes advantage of magma's high energy density due to latent heat of crystallization and delivered by convection to sustain high power output. Not only have SHGS wells proximal to magma at Krafla Caldera, Iceland, exhibited high flow rates equivalent to >100 MWt, but the expected efficiency of conversion to electricity is ~30% vs. ~10% for conventional geothermal. When combined with the new efficiencies of High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) tranmission, the economic balance could shift from low-grade geothermal sources near the consumer to high-grade sources farther from the consumer. © 2018 International Journal of Caring Sciences. All rights reserved. Conference paper 2018 English 0934412235 01935933 Transactions - Geothermal Resources Council 42 Geothermal Resources Council 2396 – 2405 Effluent treatment; Geothermal fields; Geothermal wells; Heat convection; HVDC power transmission; Infill drilling; Latent heat; Observatories; Power markets; Quenching; Supercritical fluids; Testbeds; Geothermal; High temperature; Hydrothermal; Magma; Volcanology; Drilling fluids https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85059892122&partnerID=40&md5=d2d6049a282566c7dbc0d67715621d0e Cited by: 5 John Eichelberger Hjalti Pall Ingolfsson Charles Carrigan Yan Lavallee Jefferson William Tester Sigurdur H. Markusson